Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[hadit]

Thank you for making my point for me. There is nothing heretical in being skeptical about Darwinism. Note that is not the same as claiming that animals never adapt to survive.

Thank you for proving my point: you have no point.

You do know this planet is more than 6,000 years old, right? While it may be heretical to accept that, you can have "faith" that the Christian Taliban wont be allowed to burn you at the stake.

You're still doing it. What did I ever say about the age of the earth? Your responses are exactly what I predicted.

Well actually, you didn't say much of anything except to use a number of slogan and cliches' that are staples of fundamentalist Christian madrassahs.

You do note, don't you, that your language "fundamentalist Christian madrassahs", does not indicate a scholarly approach to the question of how life originated?

Your comments are typical coming from religious extremists.

Evolution does not address how life originated. That's a truly basic precept but a mistake typically made by religious extremists.

Darwin's theory doesn't about how species come into being doesn't account for everything we see. There are legitimate reasons to be skeptical.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

You're lying again.....


Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.


Why are you so afraid to address the topic?

Address your fraudulent "quote-mining".


Why are you so afraid to address your frauds?


You do know that Stephen Meyer is a hack, has no formal training in biology, right? Yet you "quote-mine" his nonsensical works.

Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

It's the only thing I've posted about in the thread....and you've run from it as though it was radioactive.

Why is that?

 

[hadit]

Again, a non-scientific response that bolsters my point, that many, if not most, adherents to the Darwinian model don't really understand it and its flaws.

Bolstering your religious view by attacking science is a staple of fundamentalist Christians. It's more a case of fundamentalist Christians attacking the science they don't understand.

Note that I have not mentioned religious belief. That is your construct. Nor have I attacked science. Again, your construct. What I have done is stated that classic Darwinism has some flaws and that there are some things that cast serious doubt upon it. Your responses indicate to me that your stance is more religious in nature than you might care to admit.

I noted that the terms you use are typical of fundamentalist Christian ministries. As with your use of slogans such as "Darwinism" that indicates to me that it is your stance that is religious in nature.

From Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

What's wrong with that term? It's accurate.

You get your science from wiki?

Can you also cut and paste a definition of "religious extremist"?

I got the definition of a word from there. Do you dispute the meaning of the word?

 

[Hollie]

Bolstering your religious view by attacking science is a staple of fundamentalist Christians. It's more a case of fundamentalist Christians attacking the science they don't understand.

Note that I have not mentioned religious belief. That is your construct. Nor have I attacked science. Again, your construct. What I have done is stated that classic Darwinism has some flaws and that there are some things that cast serious doubt upon it. Your responses indicate to me that your stance is more religious in nature than you might care to admit.

I noted that the terms you use are typical of fundamentalist Christian ministries. As with your use of slogans such as "Darwinism" that indicates to me that it is your stance that is religious in nature.

From Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

What's wrong with that term? It's accurate.

You get your science from wiki?

Can you also cut and paste a definition of "religious extremist"?

I got the definition of a word from there. Do you dispute the meaning of the word?

Wiki is not a reliable source for science matters. How is it possible that you didn't understand such a very basic precept of the theory of evolution - that the beginning of life is not addressed by the theory?

 

[Hollie]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

You're lying again.....


Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.


Why are you so afraid to address the topic?

Address your fraudulent "quote-mining".


Why are you so afraid to address your frauds?


You do know that Stephen Meyer is a hack, has no formal training in biology, right? Yet you "quote-mine" his nonsensical works.

Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

It's the only thing I've posted about in the thread....and you've run from it as though it was radioactive.

Why is that?

You're a dishonest "quote-miner". After you have repeatedly been shown to be a dishonest "quote-miner" why do you continue with your lies?

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.
For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

• Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
• Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

 

[hadit]

Note that I have not mentioned religious belief. That is your construct. Nor have I attacked science. Again, your construct. What I have done is stated that classic Darwinism has some flaws and that there are some things that cast serious doubt upon it. Your responses indicate to me that your stance is more religious in nature than you might care to admit.

I noted that the terms you use are typical of fundamentalist Christian ministries. As with your use of slogans such as "Darwinism" that indicates to me that it is your stance that is religious in nature.

From Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

What's wrong with that term? It's accurate.

You get your science from wiki?

Can you also cut and paste a definition of "religious extremist"?

I got the definition of a word from there. Do you dispute the meaning of the word?

Wiki is not a reliable source for science matters. How is it possible that you didn't understand such a very basic precept of the theory of evolution - that the beginning of life is not addressed by the theory?

What part of word definition is hard to understand? Do you agree with the definition or not? If I turned to Wiki for a dissertation on out of order fossils, you might have a point. Tell you what, find and post a different meaning for the word for discussion. Otherwise, it stands.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

You're lying again.....


Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.


Why are you so afraid to address the topic?

Address your fraudulent "quote-mining".


Why are you so afraid to address your frauds?


You do know that Stephen Meyer is a hack, has no formal training in biology, right? Yet you "quote-mine" his nonsensical works.

Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

It's the only thing I've posted about in the thread....and you've run from it as though it was radioactive.

Why is that?

You're a dishonest "quote-miner". After you have repeatedly been shown to be a dishonest "quote-miner" why do you continue with your lies?

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.
For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

• Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
• Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

It's the only thing I've posted about in the thread....and you've run from it as though it was radioactive.

Why is that?


You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[Hollie]

I noted that the terms you use are typical of fundamentalist Christian ministries. As with your use of slogans such as "Darwinism" that indicates to me that it is your stance that is religious in nature.

From Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

What's wrong with that term? It's accurate.

You get your science from wiki?

Can you also cut and paste a definition of "religious extremist"?

I got the definition of a word from there. Do you dispute the meaning of the word?

Wiki is not a reliable source for science matters. How is it possible that you didn't understand such a very basic precept of the theory of evolution - that the beginning of life is not addressed by the theory?

What part of word definition is hard to understand? Do you agree with the definition or not? If I turned to Wiki for a dissertation on out of order fossils, you might have a point. Tell you what, find and post a different meaning for the word for discussion. Otherwise, it stands.

What's remarkable is that you rattled on with claims that "Darwinism" has inherent flaws. You then identified that you had no knowledge that your claimed "flaw" was actually in connection with your not understanding even the basic precepts of the theory you claim is flawed.

"Otherwise it stands".

How cute. Your chest-heaving, heavy-breathing argumentation is based upon the ".... because I say so", premise.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

 

[Hollie]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

You're lying again.....


Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.


Why are you so afraid to address the topic?

Address your fraudulent "quote-mining".


Why are you so afraid to address your frauds?


You do know that Stephen Meyer is a hack, has no formal training in biology, right? Yet you "quote-mine" his nonsensical works.

Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

It's the only thing I've posted about in the thread....and you've run from it as though it was radioactive.

Why is that?

You're a dishonest "quote-miner". After you have repeatedly been shown to be a dishonest "quote-miner" why do you continue with your lies?

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.
For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

• Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
• Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

It's the only thing I've posted about in the thread....and you've run from it as though it was radioactive.

Why is that?


You can run, but you can't hide.

You can lie and you can "quote-mine" but I'll have no problem pointing out you're a fraud and a liar.

 

[hadit]

From Wikipedia:

What's wrong with that term? It's accurate.

You get your science from wiki?

Can you also cut and paste a definition of "religious extremist"?

I got the definition of a word from there. Do you dispute the meaning of the word?

Wiki is not a reliable source for science matters. How is it possible that you didn't understand such a very basic precept of the theory of evolution - that the beginning of life is not addressed by the theory?

What part of word definition is hard to understand? Do you agree with the definition or not? If I turned to Wiki for a dissertation on out of order fossils, you might have a point. Tell you what, find and post a different meaning for the word for discussion. Otherwise, it stands.

What's remarkable is that you rattled on with claims that "Darwinism" has inherent flaws. You then identified that you had no knowledge that your claimed "flaw" was actually in connection with your not understanding even the basic precepts of the theory you claim is flawed.

"Otherwise it stands".

How cute. You're chest-heaving, heavy-breathing argumentation is based upon the ".... because I say so", premise.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

I'll take that to mean you accept the definition of the term "Darwinism" and its application to the discussion, since you posted no different definition.

 

[Hollie]

You get your science from wiki?

Can you also cut and paste a definition of "religious extremist"?

I got the definition of a word from there. Do you dispute the meaning of the word?

Wiki is not a reliable source for science matters. How is it possible that you didn't understand such a very basic precept of the theory of evolution - that the beginning of life is not addressed by the theory?

What part of word definition is hard to understand? Do you agree with the definition or not? If I turned to Wiki for a dissertation on out of order fossils, you might have a point. Tell you what, find and post a different meaning for the word for discussion. Otherwise, it stands.

What's remarkable is that you rattled on with claims that "Darwinism" has inherent flaws. You then identified that you had no knowledge that your claimed "flaw" was actually in connection with your not understanding even the basic precepts of the theory you claim is flawed.

"Otherwise it stands".

How cute. You're chest-heaving, heavy-breathing argumentation is based upon the ".... because I say so", premise.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

I'll take that to mean you accept the definition of the term "Darwinism" and its application to the discussion, since you posted no different definition.

I'll take that to mean you accept your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution as an excuse for your error.

Don't you think you should have at least a middling understanding of the subject you're arguing against?

 

[hadit]

I got the definition of a word from there. Do you dispute the meaning of the word?

Wiki is not a reliable source for science matters. How is it possible that you didn't understand such a very basic precept of the theory of evolution - that the beginning of life is not addressed by the theory?

What part of word definition is hard to understand? Do you agree with the definition or not? If I turned to Wiki for a dissertation on out of order fossils, you might have a point. Tell you what, find and post a different meaning for the word for discussion. Otherwise, it stands.

What's remarkable is that you rattled on with claims that "Darwinism" has inherent flaws. You then identified that you had no knowledge that your claimed "flaw" was actually in connection with your not understanding even the basic precepts of the theory you claim is flawed.

"Otherwise it stands".

How cute. You're chest-heaving, heavy-breathing argumentation is based upon the ".... because I say so", premise.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

I'll take that to mean you accept the definition of the term "Darwinism" and its application to the discussion, since you posted no different definition.

I'll take that to mean you accept your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution as an excuse for your error.

Don't you think you should have at least a middling understanding of the subject you're arguing against?

Did you not note where I stated that Darwin's theory does not address many issues related to how species originate? IOW, you're beating on a straw man. First, you try desperately to make this about me being a religious fanatic, now you're trying to steer things onto a non-issue with Darwinism. The OP doesn't address the origin of life, I'm not addressing it. Why are you?

 

[Hollie]

Wiki is not a reliable source for science matters. How is it possible that you didn't understand such a very basic precept of the theory of evolution - that the beginning of life is not addressed by the theory?

What part of word definition is hard to understand? Do you agree with the definition or not? If I turned to Wiki for a dissertation on out of order fossils, you might have a point. Tell you what, find and post a different meaning for the word for discussion. Otherwise, it stands.

What's remarkable is that you rattled on with claims that "Darwinism" has inherent flaws. You then identified that you had no knowledge that your claimed "flaw" was actually in connection with your not understanding even the basic precepts of the theory you claim is flawed.

"Otherwise it stands".

How cute. You're chest-heaving, heavy-breathing argumentation is based upon the ".... because I say so", premise.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

I'll take that to mean you accept the definition of the term "Darwinism" and its application to the discussion, since you posted no different definition.

I'll take that to mean you accept your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution as an excuse for your error.

Don't you think you should have at least a middling understanding of the subject you're arguing against?

Did you not note where I stated that Darwin's theory does not address many issues related to how species originate? IOW, you're beating on a straw man. First, you try desperately to make this about me being a religious fanatic, now you're trying to steer things onto a non-issue with Darwinism. The OP doesn't address the origin of life, I'm not addressing it. Why are you?

Did you forget that it was you who attempted to make the connection between the origin of life and "Darwinism"? Did you forget that it was you who introduced the term "Darwinism"?

You should consider trying out for the U.S. Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.

 

[hadit]

What part of word definition is hard to understand? Do you agree with the definition or not? If I turned to Wiki for a dissertation on out of order fossils, you might have a point. Tell you what, find and post a different meaning for the word for discussion. Otherwise, it stands.

What's remarkable is that you rattled on with claims that "Darwinism" has inherent flaws. You then identified that you had no knowledge that your claimed "flaw" was actually in connection with your not understanding even the basic precepts of the theory you claim is flawed.

"Otherwise it stands".

How cute. You're chest-heaving, heavy-breathing argumentation is based upon the ".... because I say so", premise.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

I'll take that to mean you accept the definition of the term "Darwinism" and its application to the discussion, since you posted no different definition.

I'll take that to mean you accept your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution as an excuse for your error.

Don't you think you should have at least a middling understanding of the subject you're arguing against?

Did you not note where I stated that Darwin's theory does not address many issues related to how species originate? IOW, you're beating on a straw man. First, you try desperately to make this about me being a religious fanatic, now you're trying to steer things onto a non-issue with Darwinism. The OP doesn't address the origin of life, I'm not addressing it. Why are you?

Did you forget that it was you who attempted to make the connection between the origin of life and "Darwinism"? Did you forget that it was you who introduced the term "Darwinism"?

You should consider trying out for the U.S. Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.

Classical Darwinism, as taught in schools today, is flawed. That is the premise. Thus far, you have done nothing to address it.

 

[Hollie]

What's remarkable is that you rattled on with claims that "Darwinism" has inherent flaws. You then identified that you had no knowledge that your claimed "flaw" was actually in connection with your not understanding even the basic precepts of the theory you claim is flawed.

"Otherwise it stands".

How cute. You're chest-heaving, heavy-breathing argumentation is based upon the ".... because I say so", premise.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

I'll take that to mean you accept the definition of the term "Darwinism" and its application to the discussion, since you posted no different definition.

I'll take that to mean you accept your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution as an excuse for your error.

Don't you think you should have at least a middling understanding of the subject you're arguing against?

Did you not note where I stated that Darwin's theory does not address many issues related to how species originate? IOW, you're beating on a straw man. First, you try desperately to make this about me being a religious fanatic, now you're trying to steer things onto a non-issue with Darwinism. The OP doesn't address the origin of life, I'm not addressing it. Why are you?

Did you forget that it was you who attempted to make the connection between the origin of life and "Darwinism"? Did you forget that it was you who introduced the term "Darwinism"?

You should consider trying out for the U.S. Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.

Classical Darwinism, as taught in schools today, is flawed. That is the premise. Thus far, you have done nothing to address it.

There's nothing to address. Your bellicose "... because I say so" claim is not an argument and not a premise. You might prefer christian creationism be taught in place of science but there is something called the Constitution which prevents that.

Further, I'm not aware that "Darwinism" is a part of any public school syllabus.

 

[hadit]

I'll take that to mean you accept the definition of the term "Darwinism" and its application to the discussion, since you posted no different definition.

I'll take that to mean you accept your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution as an excuse for your error.

Don't you think you should have at least a middling understanding of the subject you're arguing against?

Did you not note where I stated that Darwin's theory does not address many issues related to how species originate? IOW, you're beating on a straw man. First, you try desperately to make this about me being a religious fanatic, now you're trying to steer things onto a non-issue with Darwinism. The OP doesn't address the origin of life, I'm not addressing it. Why are you?

Did you forget that it was you who attempted to make the connection between the origin of life and "Darwinism"? Did you forget that it was you who introduced the term "Darwinism"?

You should consider trying out for the U.S. Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.

Classical Darwinism, as taught in schools today, is flawed. That is the premise. Thus far, you have done nothing to address it.

There's nothing to address. Your bellicose "... because I say so" claim is not an argument and not a premise. You might prefer christian creationism be taught in place of science but there is something called the Constitution which prevents that.

I'm beginning to think you're not very serious. I didn't say anything about teaching Creationism. That's your construct, not mine.

Further, I'm not aware that "Darwinism" is a part of any public school syllabus.

So, what do you think is being taught in schools today if it is not Darwinism, as defined in this thread? Note that said definition was posted and not countered, thus holds. Do the textbooks reference Darwin in their teachings on biology? Do they identify him as the founder of the evolutionary model? Do they teach his ideas? These are all indications that Darwinism is indeed taught in school today.

 

[Hollie]

I'll take that to mean you accept your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution as an excuse for your error.

Don't you think you should have at least a middling understanding of the subject you're arguing against?

Did you not note where I stated that Darwin's theory does not address many issues related to how species originate? IOW, you're beating on a straw man. First, you try desperately to make this about me being a religious fanatic, now you're trying to steer things onto a non-issue with Darwinism. The OP doesn't address the origin of life, I'm not addressing it. Why are you?

Did you forget that it was you who attempted to make the connection between the origin of life and "Darwinism"? Did you forget that it was you who introduced the term "Darwinism"?

You should consider trying out for the U.S. Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.

Classical Darwinism, as taught in schools today, is flawed. That is the premise. Thus far, you have done nothing to address it.

There's nothing to address. Your bellicose "... because I say so" claim is not an argument and not a premise. You might prefer christian creationism be taught in place of science but there is something called the Constitution which prevents that.

I'm beginning to think you're not very serious. I didn't say anything about teaching Creationism. That's your construct, not mine.

Further, I'm not aware that "Darwinism" is a part of any public school syllabus.

So, what do you think is being taught in schools today if it is not Darwinism, as defined in this thread? Note that said definition was posted and not countered, thus holds. Do the textbooks reference Darwin in their teachings on biology? Do they identify him as the founder of the evolutionary model? Do they teach his ideas? These are all indications that Darwinism is indeed taught in school today.

Ah. I see. You're a conspiracy theorist who believes that ID'iosy should be taught.

Do you think anyone is fooled by the ID'iot label for christian fundamentalism?

 

[hadit]

Did you not note where I stated that Darwin's theory does not address many issues related to how species originate? IOW, you're beating on a straw man. First, you try desperately to make this about me being a religious fanatic, now you're trying to steer things onto a non-issue with Darwinism. The OP doesn't address the origin of life, I'm not addressing it. Why are you?

Did you forget that it was you who attempted to make the connection between the origin of life and "Darwinism"? Did you forget that it was you who introduced the term "Darwinism"?

You should consider trying out for the U.S. Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.

Classical Darwinism, as taught in schools today, is flawed. That is the premise. Thus far, you have done nothing to address it.

There's nothing to address. Your bellicose "... because I say so" claim is not an argument and not a premise. You might prefer christian creationism be taught in place of science but there is something called the Constitution which prevents that.

I'm beginning to think you're not very serious. I didn't say anything about teaching Creationism. That's your construct, not mine.

Further, I'm not aware that "Darwinism" is a part of any public school syllabus.

So, what do you think is being taught in schools today if it is not Darwinism, as defined in this thread? Note that said definition was posted and not countered, thus holds. Do the textbooks reference Darwin in their teachings on biology? Do they identify him as the founder of the evolutionary model? Do they teach his ideas? These are all indications that Darwinism is indeed taught in school today.

Ah. I see. You're a conspiracy theorist who believes that ID'iosy should be taught.

Do you think anyone is fooled by the ID'iot label for christian fundamentalism?

Where did I say ID should be taught in schools? You're all over the map on this one, accusing me of all sorts of things I didn't do. Now, since I'm NOT the topic, when are you going to admit skepticism about Darwinism is healthy?

 

[Hollie]

Did you forget that it was you who attempted to make the connection between the origin of life and "Darwinism"? Did you forget that it was you who introduced the term "Darwinism"?

You should consider trying out for the U.S. Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.

Classical Darwinism, as taught in schools today, is flawed. That is the premise. Thus far, you have done nothing to address it.

There's nothing to address. Your bellicose "... because I say so" claim is not an argument and not a premise. You might prefer christian creationism be taught in place of science but there is something called the Constitution which prevents that.

I'm beginning to think you're not very serious. I didn't say anything about teaching Creationism. That's your construct, not mine.

Further, I'm not aware that "Darwinism" is a part of any public school syllabus.

So, what do you think is being taught in schools today if it is not Darwinism, as defined in this thread? Note that said definition was posted and not countered, thus holds. Do the textbooks reference Darwin in their teachings on biology? Do they identify him as the founder of the evolutionary model? Do they teach his ideas? These are all indications that Darwinism is indeed taught in school today.

Ah. I see. You're a conspiracy theorist who believes that ID'iosy should be taught.

Do you think anyone is fooled by the ID'iot label for christian fundamentalism?

Where did I say ID should be taught in schools? You're all over the map on this one, accusing me of all sorts of things I didn't do. Now, since I'm NOT the topic, when are you going to admit skepticism about Darwinism is healthy?

When are you going to admit your agenda?

 

[hadit]

Classical Darwinism, as taught in schools today, is flawed. That is the premise. Thus far, you have done nothing to address it.

There's nothing to address. Your bellicose "... because I say so" claim is not an argument and not a premise. You might prefer christian creationism be taught in place of science but there is something called the Constitution which prevents that.

I'm beginning to think you're not very serious. I didn't say anything about teaching Creationism. That's your construct, not mine.

Further, I'm not aware that "Darwinism" is a part of any public school syllabus.

So, what do you think is being taught in schools today if it is not Darwinism, as defined in this thread? Note that said definition was posted and not countered, thus holds. Do the textbooks reference Darwin in their teachings on biology? Do they identify him as the founder of the evolutionary model? Do they teach his ideas? These are all indications that Darwinism is indeed taught in school today.

Ah. I see. You're a conspiracy theorist who believes that ID'iosy should be taught.

Do you think anyone is fooled by the ID'iot label for christian fundamentalism?

Where did I say ID should be taught in schools? You're all over the map on this one, accusing me of all sorts of things I didn't do. Now, since I'm NOT the topic, when are you going to admit skepticism about Darwinism is healthy?

When are you going to admit your agenda?

I already have. I posted that there are problems with the Darwinism that is taught in schools. It's as clear as that. It's not my problem you don't want to deal with that and instead choose to fight a battle against no one. Why is criticism of Darwinism equated in your mind with a desire to teach ID in schools? I never said that, only you did in your quest to avoid dealing with the premise of my argument.